Evening Standard Comment: The case for HS2 has still not been made

In the wake of a blizzard of criticism of plans for HS2, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin is fighting back with a report emphasising the project’s economic benefits. The report suggests the high-speed rail link could benefit the economy by £15 billion a year, with regions outside London benefiting the most. There is no doubt that the project is desirable in itself: it would indeed increase capacity on a congested route and would reduce journey times. But neither today’s report nor the speech are likely to quell doubts about the costs or benefits of the scheme.

HS2 has yet to hit the public consciousness outside areas that will be affected by its construction, in the Chilterns and in north London: 80 per cent of the houses demolished on the London-Birmingham route will be in Camden. But the real debate is about spending priorities. The Treasury insists that the funding is ringfenced: the HS2 pot would not be spent on other projects were it to be abandoned. But why shouldn’t the cost — officially £42.6 billion, though Treasury sources have suggested eventually nearer £70 billion — be diverted to improving the rail network in other ways? Indeed, if the expenditure were simply earmarked for transport, there are many business groups who would like it spent on expanding airports.

Mr McLoughlin emphasises that HS2 will create more capacity. Yet there are other ways of providing more space: Virgin devotes four of nine carriages on most of the trains it operates on the London-Birmingham route to first-class passengers, which means that those carriages are often half empty while passengers stand in economy. Parts of the route at each end, dominated by commuters, are very overcrowded but others less so. There is also the cost: if a high-speed service charges more than ordinary trains, how many passengers will be able to afford it?

The trade-off we should realistically be examining is whether the interests of rail passengers overall would be better served by further spending on humdrum areas like extending platform lengths and adding extra carriages to trains. It’s not yet clear that HS2 is the better choice.

The US changes tack

President Obama has decided not to press ahead with this week’s vote in Congress to support military strikes on Syria in response to the chemical weapons attack for which it blames the Assad regime. It is a pragmatic move acknowledging that events have moved on decisively now that Syria has agreed to Russia’s plan to put its stockpile of chemical weapons beyond use. Mr Obama calls the Russian initiative and Syria’s response “encouraging signs” while reserving judgment about its prospects.

In truth the Russian proposal may be largely a tactic to buy Assad more time: the practicalities of any such arrangement will be very difficult. Yet it has made US plans for a military strike less urgent: the important thing is that it is now less likely that chemical weapons will be used again. President Obama can argue that Syria would have been unlikely to have conceded as much without the threat of US action. Yet that still leaves a war in which both sides have committed war crimes. Now that the issue of chemical weapons has been put on hold, we must concentrate on a political settlement to the war.

Trade in goodwill

Princes William and Harry have joined City traders in their annual charity day to raise funds for good causes and commemorate the 9/11 attacks. It is a positive move, to remember the past by helping the needy of the present.